| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| BY the character creation rules, can you put more than 1 of the 3 "pips" into the same specialty, giving you 2D over skill? |
| Yes |
|
23% |
[ 5 ] |
| No |
|
57% |
[ 12 ] |
| Other |
|
19% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 21 |
|
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Crimson_red wrote: |
That is the issue; you are not asking players (well, you are, but...), you are asking GMs. This is the Gamemaster forum and we're answering the question as GMs. That is one reason I object to the use of the term 'rules lawyer' here. For the most part, GMs can't 'rules lawyer' in their own game, barring some really poor, unconsidered calls or douche-bag choices. |
It is true its the game master forum, but this is the general non house/official rule area for asking questions on how people see.. not just GMs..
| Quote: | | I was a practicing rules lawyer in ages past, and in my day I could've talked circles around both those threads on an off day while I was eating and still not made any points half as well grounded in reality (or organized fiction) as the ones Bren made and I disagreed with on the other thread. Let's keep the ad hominem to a minimum. Discrediting a person, even justly, doesn't discredit their argument. Defeating it at its strongest with a better one does. |
Unfortunately i am nor have i ever been a decent rules lawyer, so i will admit i struggle to counter the arguments RLS put forward...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarm R'keeg wrote: | | Perhaps it is time to call this discussion? It seems to be getting a little uncivil. |
While I realize this comment may not have been directed at me, I want to make it clear that I'm not emotional or trying to be uncivil. I do this because I know from past experiences that the tone of my posts is easily misunderstood as I tend to express things in a blunt manner, if I have ruffled any feathers I apologize.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I certainly wasn't specifying any specific D, but I can't shake the impression that I've completely misunderstood your post here... |
The point was to emphasize 1 of 7 is always 1 no matter how you do it, an emphasis that obviously failed... | Fallon Kell wrote: | | My whole point is that there is no RAW on this subject. The idea that there is no intent, while extraneous and based solely on a hunch, bookends nicely with that point. |
There has to be intent or the author would not have put pen to paper. They had a purpose for writing the rule, they intended that rule to be used a certain way, by looking solely at the verbiage you disregard that. | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I can't speak for Bren, but I for one completely see your side of the argument. I just think that you're incorrect in assuming RAW and intent decisively from the text we have. That's why I've always said and will continue to say that it comes down to GM preference. |
I agree that manner in which it is ran does indeed come down to the GM's preference, but the manner in which it's interpreted should be by the author's intent, or at least our best understanding of it. A GM can run things any way he like's, that's their right as a GM, but the RAW exists to give everyone a common starting point. The key word is common, when you have multiple interpretations of a rule, the most likely to be correct is the most obvious as it reasonable to assume the author would have written it differently if they had intended an alternate one to be correct, they chose the words they used for a reason, that is why I keep saying that the author's words don't support your interpretation as the one they meant.
Now whether the words the author chose meets with our desire for a precise use of the language is another matter entirely. In other words, just because we don't think they expressed it properly doesn't mean we're free to interpret it any way we choose, the author had intent when they wrote it, or they wouldn't have written it and that intent is what makes the RAW the RAW, because when you get right down to it, it's their rules set. We don't have to agree with it, but we should do our best to understand it.
| Crimson_red wrote: | That is the issue; you are not asking players (well, you are, but...), you are asking GMs. This is the Gamemaster forum and we're answering the question as GMs. That is one reason I object to the use of the term 'rules lawyer' here. For the most part, GMs can't 'rules lawyer' in their own game, barring some really poor, unconsidered calls or douche-bag choices.
This is not one of those cases. It is just a GM's call on character creation, of a rule that largely just has an affect on the tone of the game, in regard to starting characters. |
My use of the term came from the similarity in the type of argument, that is 'rules lawyers' tend to focus only on what is possible with the verbiage to interpret the rules.
Within their own game, it is a GM's call on how they choose to do character creation, but the RAW is not supposed to be a 'call', it's supposed to be the standard rules. Whether a GM follows them or not is up to them.
| Bren wrote: | | Some folks in this thread are less concerned about precision in language. |
I personally have a preference for it, but since it's almost lacking entirely in this rules set, I don't focus on what it should have been and instead focus on trying to understand the author's intent, whether I agree with it or not.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Discrediting a person, even justly, doesn't discredit their argument. Defeating it at its strongest with a better one does. |
Well said, and I too am guilty of once practicing the art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | There has to be intent or the author would not have put pen to paper. |
Of course there was intent, but how relevant is that intent to the discussion and to our usage of the rules. Its interesting for sure, and could inform how we look at them, but that doesn't mean it is even present in the RAW or particularly relevant to the RAW (assuming that is what matters, I care less about RAW than how the rule impacts my game).
There is a literary school of thought (sorry, can't remember the name anymore - new literary criticism? Any English majors present?), that basically believes that the author's intent doesn't matter, it was there when they wrote it, but if it can't be expressly found within the text it is irrelevant. All that matters about the text is what can be found within the text (and how it relates to its audience/world around it).
Though I never liked that particular school, and have been known to call it unflattering names, I do think it is of particular relevance to this discussion. Intent doesn't matter so much as what we can take from the text itself and how that relates to our game experience.
| garhkal wrote: |
It is true its the game master forum, but this is the general non house/official rule area for asking questions on how people see.. not just GMs. |
That is true, that is why I did clarify in my own posts any differences how I approached the question based on being a player or a GM. I guess I was trying to say is there is a difference and it couldn't hurt to clarify before assuming it is one or the other.
Last edited by Crimson_red on Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | The point was to emphasize 1 of 7 is always 1 no matter how you do it, an emphasis that obviously failed... |
Okay. You did get that point across, but you made it in reference to me, and I had never posited anything that would require more than one of the seven skill dice, so I thought I may have misunderstood what you were getting at. | Fallon Kell wrote: | | My whole point is that there is no RAW on this subject. The idea that there is no intent, while extraneous and based solely on a hunch, bookends nicely with that point. |
| Orion wrote: | | There has to be intent or the author would not have put pen to paper. |
 You're right. Let me clarify my language, then.  There could easily have been no consideration of whether you could put two or more of your specialization dice into the same specialization, and therefore no intent on that specific aspect of the rule. Intent on one subject does not necessitate intent on all.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | My whole point is that there is no RAW on this subject. The idea that there is no intent, while extraneous and based solely on a hunch, bookends nicely with that point. |
There has to be intent or the author would not have put pen to paper. They had a purpose for writing the rule, they intended that rule to be used a certain way, by looking solely at the verbiage you disregard that. |
I not saying that I subscribe to this, but what I took from Fallon's comments on lack of intent was that he thought it was possible that if the author were asked about intent the author might have just said - "oh I just meant that at character creation you could get specializations at a 1/3 ratio in contrast to the normal 1/2 CP cost for specializations after character creation." In other words that the author had not thought deeply about his intent or his wording.
| Orion wrote: | | I agree that manner in which it is ran does indeed come down to the GM's preference, but the manner in which it's interpreted should be by the author's intent, or at least our best understanding of it. |
I agree the author was likely to have an intent.
The questions at issue are:
- What was the author's intent?
- What do the words used say?
- Are the words used well chosen so as to accurately reflect the author's intent or are the words used poorly chosen so as to obscure or even contradict the author's intent?
In order:
- To examine the author’s intent, I ask what is the principle behind a rule that specializations can be acquired only in the ratio of 1D for 3D allocated to 3 separate skill? We are stuck with only the words in the rules. We can ask which interpretation of the words makes sense in the context of an RPG and of the setting. An intent that is in harmony with both the setting and the constraints of an RPG is likely to be the correct intent. An intent that is not in harmony is unlikely to be the correct intent. To me, an intent that specializations can only be purchased as 1D for 1D in each of three skills makes no sense from any real world standpoint, has no counterpart in the SWU, and serves no game balance function (since there is already a rule limiting skills to +2D addition to the base and +3D total to base and specialization). So if this was the author's intent then the rule on limitations of specializations is totally arbitrary rule. I would argue that we should presume the author had a good reason rather than a non-existent reason for creating a rule. After all the author could have kept the same 1/2 ratio as is used after character creation. I conclude that a better ratio was created to make specializations more attractive to starting characters – since a specialization essentially either fixes the base skill at starting level or requires the character to spend CPs inefficiently.
- The words chosen are imprecise and somewhat ambiguous. Precise wording for the interpretation that garkal, Grimace, and Orion prefer would require the insertion of a minimum of one additional word - "only". If we ignore intent or any presumption of good design, then I would tend to agree that Orion's reading of the text is reasonable. I just don't think we should ignore intent or design.
- While one could argue that the missing word is the result of a simple typo I am less convinced because that then requires us to assume the rule is arbitrary and I tend to presume that the majority of rules in RPGs are non-arbitrary in design. Given the number of imprecise or flatly ambiguous rules in WEG Star Wars I tend to think that the author, proofreaders, and playtesters all knew what the author intended and did not carefully read or follow the text. I am inclined to use an interpretation of the text that allows the rule to align with what seems to me a common sense notion that characters may start the game with a number of specializations other than just zero or three.
For those that favor the other interpretation, I am curious what do you believe was the design purpose to limiting characters to exactly three specializations or none at the start of play or do you think this was just an arbitrary choice with no underlying design purpose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: |
That is true, that is why I did clarify in my own posts any differences how I approached the question based on being a player or a GM. I guess I was trying to say is there is a difference and it couldn't hurt to clarify before assuming it is one or the other. |
True perhaps i should have clarified it more..
| Quote: | | For those that favor the other interpretation, I am curious what do you believe was the design purpose to limiting characters to exactly three specializations or none at the start of play or do you think this was just an arbitrary choice with no underlying design purpose? |
Cause it gives them somewhere to dream towards.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm tired of messing with all the quotes, so forgive my laziness..
@Crimson_red: First, lets not start talking about that school of thought as it will lead to...well let's just say unflattering names are too kind for it and leave it at that.
You don't think his intent is relevant? If I say something meaning one thing, specifics don't matter for this, and you quote my exact words to support another meaning, are you not misrepresenting, intending to do so or not, what I said and why I said it and using my words improperly to support your intentions, they are not mine so they must be yours?
@Fallon Kell: How does "add 1D to each specialization" not convey the author intended a limit of 1D, it tells you what to do with the 3 specializations you just received?
@Bren:With regard to you interpretation of Fallon' words I'm not arguing that the author had any deep thought on this matter only that he had a thought in mind when he wrote it, the depth is immaterial, and in my reading of these rules usually lacking the needed level, at least in my opinion.
1. In my opinion your method relies too much on your own understanding of what is in harmony to put it simply, you put too much of what you think should be there into the matter.
2. Though a rule set should be written as a technical document, at least in my opinion, this one is written in a casual style, you could almost say it's a casual conversation between you and the author. So, think you are creating a character, you get to skills and you ask the GM(the author) How about specializations? He responds by saying, "You can spend 1D of your starting characters skill die to get three specializations; add +1D to each specialization". Do you really think that how they would have said it, if they meant it by your preferred interpretation? Isn't more likely they would have said something like this instead? For each 1D of your character's starting skill dice, you spend, you can get up to 3 specialization dice to allocate to specializations. (Not sure if I'm combining people's interpretations or not so forgive me if I included something that you haven't argued) My point is that if the author's intent was for the ratio to be the important thing they would have worded the rule to emphasize that instead and that the examples and following text would also support it, as that is what your saying is the author's important point, isn't it?
3. It doesn't have to be arbitrary, just not as well thought out as you would like. I understand why you think it's a better way, I just don't think it's what the author's was intending.
As for a reason I gave one a few posts back. I could see the author trying to limit min/maxing with this rule. I'm not saying that it's needed, just that the author could have thought it was. Simply put the author didn't want a character to only have a few or even one, usually combat related skill that would out class the other PC's, with that player relying on the other PC's to 'handle' everything else. Hey I'm the blaster guy, I've got 21D in my blaster pistol.
Last edited by Orion on Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | You don't think his intent is relevant? If I say something meaning one thing, specifics don't matter for this, and you quote my exact words to support another meaning, are you not misrepresenting, intending to do so or not, what I said and why I said it and using my words improperly to support your intentions, they are not mine so they must be yours? |
I... uh, am not to prepared to break down that paragraph  lol (and agreed on the whole school of thought thing)
In all honesty, I don't think intent, in regards to rules, matters here. If we had a statement of reason or intent, my opinion would be different. What matters is what is written, and what it means to us. I actually have come to agree with your interpretation of the RAW, as noted in a previous post. My previous interpretation was, now to my mind, misleading.
That said, when creating new games, I would still question which approach best suits my game. Experience has shown me, the impact of altering the rule to suit my needs has not been detrimental in regard to this one rule.
However, I do apologize, I suspect I have gone somewhat off topic with my last few posts.
P.S. On another, largely irrelevant note, the character in my game, the one which sparked this conversation to begin with, decided on her own to move the second specialty die into a third specialization (Swoops: JR-8) when she learned the two would be receiving a swoop with their starting equipment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: |
@Fallon Kell: How does "add 1D to each specialization" not convey the author intended a limit of 1D, it tells you what to do with the 3 specializations you just received? |
Say you buy three specializations for 1 skill die. Then you put all three of those specializations in Blaster: rifle. Each of those specializations adds 1D, for a total of +3D. (triple-specialize in Blaster: rifle)
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | Orion wrote: | | You don't think his intent is relevant? If I say something meaning one thing, specifics don't matter for this, and you quote my exact words to support another meaning, are you not misrepresenting, intending to do so or not, what I said and why I said it and using my words improperly to support your intentions, they are not mine so they must be yours? |
I... uh, am not to prepared to break down that paragraph lol (and agreed on the whole school of thought thing)
In all honesty, I don't think intent, in regards to rules, matters here. If we had a statement of reason or intent, my opinion would be different. What matters is what is written, and what it means to us. I actually have come to agree with your interpretation of the RAW, as noted in a previous post. My previous interpretation was, now to my mind, misleading.
That said, when creating new games, I would still question which approach best suits my game. Experience has shown me, the impact of altering the rule to suit my needs has not been detrimental in regard to this one rule.
However, I do apologize, I suspect I have gone somewhat off topic with my last few posts.
P.S. On another, largely irrelevant note, the character in my game, the one which sparked this conversation to begin with, decided on her own to move the second specialty die into a third specialization (Swoops: JR-8) when she learned the two would be receiving a swoop with their starting equipment. |
Sorry that's what happens when I don't revise for clarity, let me straighten it for you. I'm going to use a non-specific example because it doesn't matter what is actually being said. If I say something meaning one thing and you quote my exact words to support another meaning, are you not misrepresenting what I said and using my words to support your intentions.
Now it doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, so don't take offense. I spoke the words intending one meaning but you took them and used the same words in the same order to show a different meaning, because you used my words you are linking your meaning to me trying to use me to support your meaning. More simply put your saying I said what you said and that it means this even though I meant something else. Still think intent doesn't really matter?
As far as it regards a rule set specifically, I would say the opposite is true. And we do have a statement of intent on page 7 in the highlighted box, the goal for R&E was to make the game easier to learn. These rules were written in a casual style, almost like a conversation, in fact some of it is done as a conversation, and let's face it they were written to be marketed to a pre/young teen audience who haven't even been introduced to the concepts we are discussing here.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Say you buy three specializations for 1 skill die. Then you put all three of those specializations in Blaster: rifle. Each of those specializations adds 1D, for a total of +3D. (triple-specialize in Blaster: rifle) |
Ah, I see how your doing it. You could do it that way if it said you get 3 specialization dice and didn't have the 2nd step, but I will argue that you are only selecting 1 specialization, where your supposed to be selecting 3. Specializations are skills so I'll use that word to help clarify the process. Step one is to select 3 skills, you are not selecting 3 skills your selecting 1 skill 3 times and that is not the same thing at all, looking at that character you will only have 1 specialized skill listed on that sheet, that is less than the required 3 if you specialize. So when you get to step 2 you get +1D to your 1 specialization and your done, because there are no other specializations listed for you to add to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | If I say something meaning one thing and you quote my exact words to support another meaning, are you not misrepresenting what I said and using my words to support your intentions. |
If used out of context that very well could be. In this particular case I don't think context is a significant issue. If I'm aware of the context of the statement, and honestly using the statement within that context, and my interpretation is a reasoned and defensible conclusion based on the wording of the statement then no, I would not be misrepresenting you. It would be more accurate to say that your own language is misrepresenting you. That is why the focus on the text over authorial intent, especially when we no longer have the option of garnering said authors point of view.
That is the reason for focusing on making a reasoned and defensible interpretation of the text, devoid of authors intent when dealing with the RAW. Now a spirit of the rules interpretation or one that goes beyond the RAW could certainly benefit from discerning the authors intent, and that may even be possible, depending on the text, but it would typically be derived, in my opinion, from an interpretation of the rules, not as a means to interpret them.
lol, we're probably not all that far apart in our actual points of view, we just have a slight rhetorical bridge to cross (like I said, I agree with you on your interpretation of the text) and I don't think your interpretation of the authors intent is all that far off.
Regardless, I've likely reached the end of my positive contribution to this thread, without drawing it further off course. I doubt I have helped draw this thread any closer to reaching one of those reasoned and defensible conclusions with my last few observations either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Crimson_red wrote: | | Regardless, I've likely reached the end of my positive contribution to this thread, without drawing it further off course. I doubt I have helped draw this thread any closer to reaching one of those reasoned and defensible conclusions with my last few observations either. |
In that case, we'll agree to disagree on that point and I thank you for the discussion, it's been enjoyable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: | | Ah, I see how your doing it. You could do it that way if it said you get 3 specialization dice and didn't have the 2nd step, but I will argue that you are only selecting 1 specialization, where your supposed to be selecting 3. Specializations are skills so I'll use that word to help clarify the process. Step one is to select 3 skills, you are not selecting 3 skills your selecting 1 skill 3 times and that is not the same thing at all, looking at that character you will only have 1 specialized skill listed on that sheet, that is less than the required 3 if you specialize. So when you get to step 2 you get +1D to your 1 specialization and your done, because there are no other specializations listed for you to add to. |
Where in the RAW do you get your three different skills idea with the certainty to say that the rule book makes a definite ruling one way or the other?
(Not to be cantankerous, but imprecise language has caused this thread.)
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Orion wrote: | | Ah, I see how your doing it. You could do it that way if it said you get 3 specialization dice and didn't have the 2nd step, but I will argue that you are only selecting 1 specialization, where your supposed to be selecting 3. Specializations are skills so I'll use that word to help clarify the process. Step one is to select 3 skills, you are not selecting 3 skills your selecting 1 skill 3 times and that is not the same thing at all, looking at that character you will only have 1 specialized skill listed on that sheet, that is less than the required 3 if you specialize. So when you get to step 2 you get +1D to your 1 specialization and your done, because there are no other specializations listed for you to add to. |
Where in the RAW do you get your three different skills idea with the certainty to say that the rule book makes a definite ruling one way or the other?
(Not to be cantankerous, but imprecise language has caused this thread.) |
heheh...no offense taken 
We agree that it does say 3 skills, correct? If not then I will need to address that in another post. There are two reasons I say this: The first is implicit to what a skill is in general, it's is not an object, but trying to say I can pick the same skill twice and count it as 2 skills is treating a skill like an object. In a sense what your saying by doing it that way is that a skill and skill dice are the same thing. Skills are the description of the ability not the quantified ability level, which would be the skill's dice, so how would choosing the description twice/thrice improve the skill level? No mater how many times you choose the skill description it's always the same skill description, so how can you count it as being more than 1 towards the required 3?
The second reason comes from the process outlined by the character creation section. The rule we are discussing is in the section that uses the pre-made templates, but if you wish to create a character without a template, you are told to create a template. This process involves writing the skills you want on the template, then using that template in the first section. That establishes a procedure for getting a skill. First you write them all on the character sheet then you allocate dice to them. This is further reinforced by the language of the rule in discussion as you are told to first get 3 skills then add +1D to each of them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mind quoting the text where you're getting your first paragraph from, Orion?
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
